A teenage girl was questioned by police after allegedly making a racist remark to Asian students in the classroom. The 14-year-old pupil had refused to take part in a science tutorial with five other students at Harrop Fold High School, Salford, after claiming they didn't speak English. After questioning by police she was released without charge but the school say they are investigating the matter.

[…] Head Dr Antony Edkins said: “An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially motivated remark by one student towards a group of Asian students new to the school and this country.”

A teenage schoolgirl was arrested by police for racism after refusing to sit with a group of Asian students because some of them did not speak English. Codie Stott’s family claim she was forced to spend three-and-a-half hours in a police cell after she was reported by her teachers. According to Codie, the five – four boys and a girl – then began talking in a language she didn't understand, thought to be Urdu, so she went to speak to the teacher.

“I said ‘I’m not being funny, but can I change groups because I can’t understand them?’ But she started shouting and screaming, saying ‘It’s racist, you’re going to get done by the police’.” Codie said she went outside to calm down where another teacher found her and, after speaking to her class teacher, put her in isolation for the rest of the day.

A complaint was made to a police officer based full-time at the school, and more than a week after the incident on September 26 she was taken to Swinton police station and placed under arrest. “They told me to take my laces out of my shoes and remove my jewellery, and I had my fingerprints and photograph taken,” said Codie. “It was awful.”

[…] Robert Whelan, deputy director of the Civitas think-tank, said: […] “A lot of thesearrests don’t result in prosecutions – the aim is to frighten us into self-censorship until we watch everything we say.”

The Metropolitan Police has also decided not to take action against the controversial Muslim figure, Anjem Choudary, who allegedly said in a television interview about the row over the Pope that anyone who insulted the Muslim faith would be “subject to capital punishment”.

Some people, apparently, do not have to watch everything they say. The less control the authorities have with Muslims, the more control they want to exercise over non-Muslims. This strange mix of powerful censorship of public debate, yet little control over public law and order, has by some been labeled anarcho-tyranny. The reason why European authorities are becoming increasingly totalitarian in their censorship efforts is to conceal the fact that they are no longer willing or able to uphold even the most basic security of their citizenry.

Again with the preferential treatment of Muslims. All because one crazy muslim (Osama) started causing the world to discriminate against muslims. Is the government afraid of reprisals? HAve some balls and tackle all problems equally. Not by coddling them.

I promised that you could have the 'last word', but it has to be at least an 'honest' one. Intellectual dishonesty I cannot abide and a correction is in order.

You are the one who INTRODUCED here a comparison with the USA, not me! In response to your comment on America I have explained in which sense 'racism' can be a crime in the US. The difference with Europe (sorry, the 'continent') is that in the US it requires specific (forbidden) DEEDS or ACTIONS, not mere (subjective) SPEECH or words.

If you want to highlight differences between Britain (with its 'traditions') and the 'continent' in Europe (with its legalisms) that is fine. I am always willing to learn, for I am sure that Britain has been changing since the time, long ago, when I was quite familiar with it. But, do not make misrepresentations of 'America' or anyone else.

You seem to need a lot of 'correcting' lately. There is nothing in US law that criminalises political SPEECH. You are free to express any opinions, including 'racist' ones or any other '-ist' ones. This includes the so-called 'civil rights' legislation, which only criminalises certain ACTIONS or 'deeds', not expression of OPINIONS.

Just in case you need further elaboration, or to forstall silly responses, "freedom of speech" does NOT mean that I can come every morning at breakfast time to your front door and shout obscenities, 'racist' or other garbage at your door. That would be unlawful harrassment. It simply means that I can express my opinion about you ("racist" or otherwise) in more civilised ways, for instance in a publication, or in a debate, etc...

Unless you are in a foreign language class, English should be required at all times. I can understand this child's frustration with some of her other classmates in her group chattering in a foreign tongue. They were being RUDE to her and Britain is an English speaking nation so speak English or get out.

How is complaining about others not speaking in English be racist considering the circumstances?

One should not even be allowed citizenship until they KNEW english.

It is so sad that free speech and free press in Great Britain is being so eroded.

Let me exercise my free speech by saying that all Muslims and non-English speaking people in England and the U.S. should be booted out.

I do not wish to engage in silly semantic arguments for arguments' sake, and I do not want to answer silly questions either. I am well aware of Europe's 'diversity' and trust that you are about American diversity. If it eases your British sensibilities, I will replace the word "European" by "continental" in my expression of "European-style laws that curtail free speech".

You have nowhere been able to show that there are such laws in the US, and indeed free speech is guaranteed there by the Constitution and enforced by the courts. In a narrow sense there are 'litteral' exceptions which have to do with 'slander' and the like, and with harrasment etc.... In a fundamental sense there is freedom of speech, often in legal discussions referred to as "political speech", to imply that the speech has to take place in 'reasonable' circumstances. Hence, my earlier reference to "shouting obscenities in front of your door at breakfast time" as NOT being included under free speech. But it is obvious that you are not interested in such distinctions, since you are now veering awfully close to intellectual dishonesty. You may have the 'last word'.

You have nowhere been able to show that there are such laws in the US, and indeed free speech is guaranteed there by the Constitution and enforced by the courts.

Never attempted to do so - merely respond to someone who asked Do you consider racism to be crime? That one question was being answered in my comments............but you decided to divert it onto your own track and derail the discussion about a schoolgirl in Salford. In fact it might be best NOT to mention the Americas at all on The Brussels Journal which is commenting on matters this side of The Atlantic

Why do you force me to repeat myself? You continue to be "too superficial and too quick in your judgements" (cf. my previous post). The latest illustration of that can be found in your latest question. You ask me where in English law one could find criminalisation of speech. My answer is that I do not know. And I do not really care. Since I never made any such assertion I do not understand why you ask me such a silly question in response to my assertion that there is nothing in US law that criminalises mere speech.

I have juxtaposed the freedom of political speech in the USA with "European-style laws that criminalise certain speech". The latter are real, i.e. they do exist. How could you deny that? The latest example is the French parliament just passing a law that criminalises denial of the Armenian 'holocaust'. By contrast, any attempt to suggest that such 'things' exist in the US would be false. You do not seem to know that there is a First Amendment to the Constitution in the USA which guarantees free political speech and which is EFFECTIVELY enforced by US courts. All your material about British "orders" and "acts" is totally besides the point I made.

You do not seem to know that there is a First Amendment to the Constitution in the USA which guarantees free political speech and which is EFFECTIVELY enforced by US courts

Only at Appellate level........it does not guarantee Free POLITICAL speech - that is a limitation you have imposed

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Refresh your memory and read much more carefully before letting pomposity override judgment

The latest example is the French parliament just passing a law that criminalises denial of the Armenian 'holocaust'.

France may do as France chooses.............you speak of "Europe" as I would speak of "American" ie. including Brazil, Chile and Mexico rather than a country called the United States of America............

Europe is a Continent with over 600 million people and at least 46 countries..............how can you compare 46 countries with one and be taken seriously marcfrans ?

"European-style laws

European-style ? Is that how you buy your coffee or your duvet ? I have never heard anything so farcical as to lump laws made in Russia or Spain or Greece or Sweden with those in England and Scotland

Perhaps if you paid more attention you would note that this thread concerned a schoolgirl in SALFORD, Lancashire who was taken to a police station ONE WEEK after the events in the classroom took place.

This is not the thread to unload your prejudices about "Europe" in general but to focus on the issue in Salford, should you have anything informative to say on the subject matter as opposed to a general swipe at "Europe" as you tell us how The American Way is the only way

I may well be "didactic", but you continue to be way too superficial and too quick in your judgements. Whether that is a "character trait" I don't know, but it certainly is stupid.

The point I made was that there is nothing in US law that criminalises political speech. The crime of 'racism' in US law is not based on WORDS but on DEEDS ("doing bodily harm, etc..." as it states in the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999). There is simply no comparison with some European-style laws that criminalise SPEECH.

I grant you that many naive-left american politicians would like to follow on the terrible European road of curtailing freedom of speech, but so far they have not yet succeeded in that. They have succeeded, however, in getting the concept of "hate crime" accepted in law as an amplifying factor, in other words as a consideration in judging underlying 'motivation' for criminal acts. And that is a terrible idea, but the criminal ACTION or DEED is still needed before a 'hate crime' can become a crime!

I hope that this distinction is not too subtle for you, because I fear that it is (based on your supporting 'references', which I advise you to read more carefully).

And it is disappointing that you cannot even make the distinction between (1) criminal law and (2) someone "loosing a job". How do you know what the real 'real' reason was why that person lost his job? And, what has that got to do with whether one can be convicted in court for speech?

If hate SPEECH were illegal in America, there would be no television and publications left. They are full of potential "hate speech". Did you ever listen to a speech by Farrakhan, for instance?

Section 17 Meaning of"racial hatred" in Part III.
Section 18 Offence of using racially inflammatory words or behaviour or displaying racially inflammatory written material.
Section 19 Offence of publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material.
Section 20 Offence of giving a public performance of a racially inflammatory play.
Section 21 Offence of distributing, showing or playing a racially inflammatory recording.
Section 22 Offence of broadcasting a racially inflammatory programme or including such a programme in a cable programme service.
Section 23 Offence of possession of racially inflammatory material.

Glad you picked the 1986 Public Order Act which is the response I awaited.

An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of racial hatred; to provide for the exclusion of certain offenders from sporting events; to create a new offence relating to the contamination of or interference with goods; to confer power to direct certain trespassers to leave land; to amend section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc) Act 1985; to repeal certain obsolete or unnecessary enactments; and for connected purposes

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c) that his conduct was reasonable.

(4) A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

(a) he engages in offensive conduct which [a] constable warns him to stop, and

(b) he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.

(5) In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

The police (mis-)use Section V of the 1986 Act to intimidate people prior to any offence being tried. Because the Police are highly politicised after 10 years of Blair's Govt they are simply using every complaint as evidence that someone is offended........this leads to another form of harassment.

The Act must be read in conjunction with Art 11 of the ECHR

ARTICLE 11

1.Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2.No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. this article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

Since England does not have a codified legal system but leaves the courts to play around, the police would be in big trouble if someone pushed a test case. They rely upon intimidation of citizens to get their way, and frankly the Police in England and Wales operates in a capricious and scandalous manner.

If any country has a police structure where it is centrally controlled and a Chief Constable can be dismissed by the Central Govt Minister, the creation of a National Police Force such as Hitler created in March 1933 begins.

The recent trial of Nick Griffin and others involved a sting operation organuised by the BBC using hidden cameras in a private meeting in a public house hired for a private meeting. By secretly filming and recording and broadcasting on TV statements made at this meeting, the BBC worked with the police to initiate a trial just prior to elections in order to discredit a political party likely to gain votes from Labour Party voters.

The BBC uses hidden cameras to spy on groups - though never on fellow journalists or BBC directorate, and then works topublicise its own spying activities to initiate firings or prosecutions

It is the fact that the Police is no longer controlled or funded locally that has made it an instrument of the creeping coup d'etat staged by the Blair regime since 1997 to seize control of all centres of power in society

You seem to need a lot of 'correcting' lately. There is nothing in US law that criminalises political SPEECH. You are free to express any opinions, including 'racist' ones or any other '-ist' ones. This includes the so-called 'civil rights' legislation, which only criminalises certain ACTIONS or 'deeds', not expression of OPINIONS.

Just in case you need further elaboration, or to forstall silly responses, "freedom of speech" does NOT mean that I can come every morning at breakfast time to your front door and shout obscenities, 'racist' or other garbage at your door. That would be unlawful harrassment. It simply means that I can express my opinion about you ("racist" or otherwise) in more civilised ways, for instance in a publication, or in a debate, etc...

* Now punishable in 42 states
* Very little real statistics because USA did not truly collect data until early 1990’s

Laws Enacted

* Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999
* Crimes against race, religion, national origin, and color
* In Addition to requirements above, the person accused must have been proven to prevent another from exercising a federally protected right

The legislation in Great Britain follows closely that in the United States. the 1968 Race Relations Act was modelled on the 1964 Civil Rights Act; and the same with gender equality and other legislation, although in recent years the Acts as such have been mandated by the European Union rather than the British electorate

Schoolchildren have the right to study with people they can communicate with.

If the four new pupils don't speak English, they need to study separately till they can keep up with the other class members.

If they do speak English, but were communicating in a language they understood, but Codie Stott didn't, they they are the ones who need to be castigated, for deliberately excluding her from the study group. What do we reckon to three hours in a police cell?

And the class teacher and headteacher need to be disciplined for their bizarre reactions to Codie's predicament, and for using her as a scapegoat to justify their own bad planning.

And you can bet that if a student from an politically-fashionable victim or grievance group complained about being unable to understand classmates -- or more predictably, felt 'intimidated' or 'alienated' by being surrounded by others speaking a language she could not understand -- the teacher and administrators would fall all over themselves attempting to accommodate this child.

Indeed, it's more likely her classmates would be subjected to some form of homily or admonishment about 'tolerance' and 'acceptance.'

This school is a sink school, it has a resident police officer. It looks as if the teachers are using him as a disciplinary threat because they have no authority or confidence themselves. Everything is regulated because noone is trusted, once you start with regulation you remove all individual authority and autonomy

Thanks for the links. They provide evidence that the present head teacher has turned things around - an improvement in behaviour, mutual respect and examination results. They must be doing something right I guess.

All due respect to you for being cool-headed, but regular Brussels Journal readers would see this incident as part of a pattern, a progression in a direction we do not wish to go.

It's been a while since I set foot in a classroom, but I have trouble getting my head around the idea that a 14-year-old was reported to the police for what she said in a classroom, and was subsequently arrested.

What could a 14-year-old possibly say -- or say in such a way -- as to warrant a call to the police, much less an arrest?

The tendency to deliver more and more of the conflict resulting from everyday human interaction into the hands of mediative authorities is alarming enough evidence of our laziness and our diminished capability for making common sense judgements on the basis of sound standards.

Bland acceptance of such a bizzare incident 'until things are sorted out' -- by the appropriate authorities, of course -- sounds a bit frog-in-the-slowly-boiling-water to me.

I am a regular Brussels Journal reader, and have been for over a year.

It could be, for example, that a school makes it clear to pupils that it has a zero tolerance to crime being committed on school premises. In such a situation it would be perfectly proper, if there was evidence that such a crime had been committed, for the school to involve the police. In fact it's hard to see in such circumstances how the school could justify NOT involving the authorities.

Anyway, in this case we simply don't know, and that, as they say, is that.

Whatever was actually uttered is completely irrelevant to determin that the kind of reactions displayed by teacher, headmaster and police officers are monstrously out of proportion. The word abuse has been used below to describe the incident, and rightly so. If I were the pupils father I´d have something quite rude to say to those "authorities" involved. I mean, how can you send your kids to school if you must be prepared to have this kind of sh** happen to them?

I'll add that the political calculation includes a desire among some to wield the Orwellian power to define criminality and apply such definitions to their political enemies.

Nothing new here, as anyone who lived through or studied closely China's Cultural Revolution -- with its score-settling 'struggle sessions,' arbitrary applications of 'Mao Zedong thought' by one faction in its accusations against another, and its atmosphere of tattle-tale pandering to authority -- can attest.

Not much actually, for it doesn't mention the story but focuses on one where a Muslim instructor was dismissed from a school for wearing a veil. And it has a story on Respect's upcoming rally, providing the whole program - talk about bias.

It's becoming increasingly clear that, with few exceptions, our flaccid elites are unwilling -- for various reasons, including naivete, fear and political calculation -- to mount a serious defense of Western civilization, or come to the aid of those who do not belong to a politically-fashionable victim or grievance groups. This despite the trillions in tax dollars we hand over to those who insist, as the challenge mounts, that they are capable of leading us.

And who can blame the police for failing to go after genuine criminality, when they face career-destroying accusations of brutality and 'racism,' amplified by an ideologically-corrupt media, and the repeated failure of their superiors to stand behind them?

People the world over -- as reflected in commentary such as can be found at this blog -- are beginning to make their own calculations about what the future holds.

On the other hand, this nonsense will end if we all dared to call things by their name, and I don't mean call people names just because. Simply, lifting the PC veil from our gaze. Being aware what islam is all about. Keep in mind that MSM and politicians always swing to the tune when the tune changes. 20 million britons could not be arrested for disliking their muslim "gatecrashers".

Anglistan is going fast the route to Civil War. I have always admired the courage and the strength of the British. But to end like this? I am sure they will overcome this when the time is due and no one can take it any longer. Next global economic crisis we'll see. In the meantime, I recommend everybody go see that film, "Children of Men". The main story is not relevant here, but the background, the settings of the story paint a perfectly clear image of the shape of things to come: a civil war torn UK with hundreds of thousand of refugees and a violent climate all over the place.

I don't know, maybe it would have been better to end up speaking German rather than Arabic.

We need a form of civic defense against this sort of abuse. I think a letter/mail campaign asking both teacher and head-teacher to step down would be appropriate as this sort of abuse is absolutely unacceptable.

In the meantime I have checked the link provided by Voyager. I think a police investigation should be launched against head-teacher to ascertain whether his vile attack on that young lady was racially motivated.

You are of course right - but it is not just Pakistanis - prior to 1971 there was West and East Pakistan, after India defeated Pakistan - East Pakistan became Bangladesh.

There are Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in English cities, they hate each other, but they are both there............and the bulk of pakistanis are Kashmiris from Mirpur who want to be designed Kashmiris and not Pakistanis.

Then others want to designate the whole lot Muslims as a political entity which by definition leads them to define in turn all Whites as Christians. Since Islam has no baptism ritual, no Election and no real theology, this is absurd in that you can be born Muslim byut only baptised Christian or Jewish.

There are too many shorthand terms being used for political advantage. The term New Commonwealth Immigrant has disappeared, the term "Paki" can get the user arrested and in court. It is like walking on eggshells dealing with the mess the mentally ill who administer this country have created.

Voyager, did your PC police actually ask your Japanese and Chinese and Koreans (and probably Thai and Malays and god knows what else) if they like to be all lumped together as "Orientals"? Maybe you should follow the US and start hyphenating all your perceived ethnicities. As people mix this should be very practical in 100 years or so. Instead of using family names just use something like Robert Thai-Japanese-Caucasian-N.African jr. The americans are almost there already!

Voyager, did your PC police actually ask your Japanese and Chinese and Koreans (and probably Thai and Malays and god knows what else) if they like to be all lumped together as "Orientals"

NO ! Nor did I get asked if I wanted all these foreigners in my country ? I was not asked if I wanted 100.000 Muslims in my area ? I was not asked if I wanted the police stations closed and the police to withdraw.

Kids are likely to say or do anything. That's why they can't vote, drink or drive cars. They're not in control of themselves. To take a 14 year old for a talk with Mr. Policeman because of something she said is nothing more than child abuse.

Antony Edkins is currently Executive Headteacher of Harrop Fold School, a school facing challenging circumstances and currently in Special Measures in the City of Salford LEA. He has been Head of Falmer High School in Brighton and most recently has been Head of Secondary Improvement for East Sussex, which is working in partnership with the Centre for British Teachers (CfBT).

Antony has been involved with Education Extra, now ContinYou, from the beginning, introducing the importance of oshl to numerous schools. He is pleased to say that this work has been sustained in each of the schools.

Firstly, we do not know if the accused student made any derogatory race-related remarks to the Asian students in question. Secondly, we do not know if the accused made such comments to the teacher in question.

Thirdly, police involvement is not surprising, considering that Western public education overreacts at what was once considered "normal" behaviour. F.e. several years ago I witnessed a policeman cordoning off a classroom after hours and questioning witnesses because one kid punched another. He used a tape-measure to re-create the "crime" scene and the pattern of events. Thus, I am not surprised that this alleged remark would require C.S.I.

However, it seems that the accused did the "right thing" by consulting the teacher first, instead of humiliating the Asians, and that the teacher over-reacted for any number of reasons.* New Labour and its minions must realize that going StaSi on a 14 year-old girl will not end English xenophobia and/or Islamophobia.

*The teacher was non-White or an "anti-racist" crusader. Certainly the headmaster's comments are biased against the accused, and does not deserve the distinction of a doctorate, which usually signifies above-average intelligence.

I disagree strongly about a doctorate signifying above-average intelligence. It signifies only that the recipient was capable of staying in higher education a long time - no sign of intelligence, frankly.

This is crackpot policing caused by a crackpot government which made the police investigate every single complaint on grounds of race or sexuality or be cited an abn accessory to the alleged offence themselves.

What is really bizarre is that a Science Class for a public examination class should have within it 4 Asian pupils who had only just arrived in Britain and spoke only Urdu.

This is criminally insane. To allocate a girl who had been absent at a hospital the previous day to catch up from girls who conversed in Urdu was outrageous and the teacher should be disciplined and fired for failing in her duty of care to the pupil.

Noone should be permitted in a British School unless they are conversant in English.

This is symptomatic of why educational standards are collapsing, and why the police are held in such contempt. This society is heading to the breakers - let us hope that whatever regime replaces this farce is competent

Who we are

The Brussels Journal is written by Europeans, living in as well as outside Europe. The Brussels Journal is published by the Society for the Advancement of Freedom in Europe (SAFE), a Swiss non-profit organisation.